linux-kernel - Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:21:40 +0100
From:   Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>,
        "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "parri.andrea" <parri.andrea@...il.com>, will <will@...nel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, npiggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@...il.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@...dia.com>, joel <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)



On 1/23/2023 9:41 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 09:06:54PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
>>
>> On 1/23/2023 8:58 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:16:27PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2023 5:41 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But when you're comparing grace periods or critical sections to each other,
>>>>> things get a little ambiguous.  Should G1 be considered to come before
>>>>> G2 when t1(G1) < t1(G2), when t2(G1) < t2(G2), or when t2(G1) < t1(G2)?
>>>>> Springing for (po ; rcu-order ; po?) amounts to choosing the second
>>>>> alternative.
>>>> Aha, I see! Powerful notation indeed.
>>>> Keeping that in mind, wouldn't it make sense for pb also be changed to
>>>> `...;po?` ?
>>> You mean changing the definition of pb to either:
>>>
>>> 	prop ; strong-fence ; hb* ; po? ; [Marked]
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 	prop ; strong-fence ; hb* ; [Marked] ; po? ; [Marked]
>> Oh no, not at all!
>>
>> I mean that
>>      pb = prop ; po ; {strong ordering-operation} ; po ; hb* ; [Marked]
>> could instead be
>>      pb = prop ; po ; {strong ordering-operation} ; po? ; hb* ; [Marked]
>>
>> (note that the po ; ... ; po part is actually folded inside the actual
>> definition of strong fence).
> This goes back to the original herd models, before the LKMM came about:
> The fencerel() macro uses po on both sides.  I believe the motivating
> idea back then was that ordering should apply only to memory accesses
> (which can in practice be observed), not to other types of events such
> as memory barriers.
I see. I believe this argument no longer strictly holds, now that rcu-gp 
needs to be ordered in some cases.

>>> rcu-fence is different because rcu-order has to begin and end with
>>> either a grace period or a critical section, and both of these restrict
>>> the execution order of surrounding events:
>>>
>>> 	If X is a synchronize_rcu() or rcu_read_unlock() then events
>>> 	po-before X must execute before X;
>>>
>>> 	If X is a synchronize_rcu() or rcu_read_lock() then events
>>> 	po-after X must execute after X.
>>>
>> I believe so do the strong ordering-operations in pb.
> But the beginning and end of a pb link (for example, overwrite and hb)
> don't need to be strong-ordering operations.
Of course, but I'm not suggesting to put a po? at those locations.

have fun, jonas